






teach 
ANT Ss 

















y 0 « oe. ¥ 
* Kyi ry : Sina hy 
? 17 jeg 
ci | gn Mt 2 +, 
5 Gises a 
Ab) . 
rally a , 
i Rett a 
- A 
oi 
eC : y x 
LL alee 


oe" SR ( ) AAA (> AR (> -ARAD ( ) CERN ( ) -ERRD-( SRD ( ) <A ( ) ERR (> ERNE: ) ARID ( ) CARER () <EERENID>+ eae (92% 


Christianity and 
Divorce 
we 


Frank H. Norcross 


EE) RD  ) ED (1 () RR |) SRE (> SR 1) SE ( 


2 
































a 
ti : 
i 
- 
“7 
¢ xj 4, 
, 
: a i 
4 * 
Lie an 
ey 
ma 
a: 





* 





Fo) 0) 0 A NE) <a 

















if 
Shy 








~'NO V9 1926 
B 3) 
agian, gw 









a) i 


i ig 





nee Vs 
on Rae. 


af 
{i 4 
ap ry) 


q 
sy A 
ra M} 





CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 


Y pet estes ae 4 
(piesan tly 





LOT nee g 


rab OVI 1926 
yj ocioar sew 


Christianity and 
Divorce 


By 


Frank PeeNercrose LED: 





1926 
THE STRATFORD COMPANY 
Publishers 
Boston, MAssACHUSETTS 







Copyright, 1926 





The STRATFORD CO., Publishers — 
Boston, Mass. . ; 
ig 
vy 
4. - 4 
} , “4 
‘ { 4 f 
i 
fry. & hy 
ae | Printed in the United States of America = 
'Z r or ‘ 
os ret bore t D " 1 doe 2 i ARE ch 


Christianity and Divorce 


History presents no parallel of the effect 
of misinterpretation of language to the one 
in relation to divorce. For two thousand 
years misconstructions of the language of 
Moses and of Christ have very largely de- 
termined the customs and laws of the most 
highly civilized nations in respect to di- 


a 


vorce. Christ sought to correct a miscon-~ 


struction of the law of Moses that was 
productive of serious social evils. His 
statements were in their turn misconstrued. 
His remarks were so at variance with the 
then accepted belief in respect to what the 
law of Moses provided that they were 
taken as the utterance of a new law in- 
tended to displace the latter provisions. 
Strangely, a potent cause in fastening 
this misconstruction of his expressions 


upon the minds of his followers appears to - 


be certain expressions made during the per- 
petration of one of a number of overt acts 


[1] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Drvorcp 


of the most wicked conspiracy ever evolved 
in the disordered brains of men—the con- 
spiracy of the Pharisees to accomplish the 
destruction of Christ. It was sought to use 
Christ’s remarks as a basis of accusation 
that he was usurping authority to change 
the law of Moses. A reply made to the 

« conspirators has been erroneously accepted 
as conclusive evidence that Christ did the 
very thing the Pharisees charged him with 
doing. 

Christ did not oppose divorce authorized 
by law. He placed no limitations upon the 
grounds which the state may prescribe 
therefor. All that he did was to construe 
correctly the Mosaic law and, with an acu- 
men of a profound lawyer, point out with 
exactness the effect of a pretended divorce 
not sanctioned by its provisions. The er- 
roneous construction placed upon certain 
of Christ’s expressions is largely respon- 
sible for the restrictions to be found in the 
laws of many Christian nations and states 
upon the subject of divorce. 


[2] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 


The late William Graham Sumner, for 
many years Professor of Political and 
Social Science in Yale University, in his 
article on ‘‘Modern Marriage,’’ took occa- 
sion to say: ‘‘The man who introduced the 
word ‘sacrament’ into the Vulgate version 
created, with one drop of ink, a grievous 
load for millions of men who were to come 
after him.’’ However true this statement 
may be, it may be said that another of 
Yale’s great scholars and one time Presi- 
dent—Dr. Theodore Dwight Woolsey—in 
his ‘‘Hssay on Divorce,’’ written a half 
century ago, added the weight of his high 
position and great attainments to confirm- 
ing a now demonstrable misconstruction of 
_ the expressions of the Master in respect to 
divorce, and was among the many respon- 
sible for fastening on American states a 
misconstruction of Christ’s sayings as 
vicious as it is erroneous. 

It is difficult at best to use language so 
plain that its meaning may not be mis- 
understood. When it is considered that 
Christ’s sayings were not attempted to be 


[3] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 


recorded until years after they were ut-_ 
tered, and then were translated into a 
language different from that of the spoken 
word, it is not surprising that expressions 
so recorded may be the occasion for a mis- 
conception of what the speaker actually 
said or intended to say. When it is con- 
‘ sidered, also, that the early interpreters 
of Christ’s sayings were not conversant 
with the rules of construction which cen- 
turies of experience of courts have found 
to be most unerring in determining the true 
meaning of language employed, it is not 
surprising that material errors in inter- 
pretation have been made. It is more sur- 
- prising that the wrong construction of the 
language of Christ in respect to divorce 
should not have been discovered and ad- 
mitted long ago, unless there was a mis- 
guided purpose in adhering to the error. 

If the generally accepted interpretation 
were correct, strong and convincing should 
be. the reasons therefor. Fortunately, for 
society’s ultimate welfare, no sound reason 
can be offered. However, with assurance, 


[4] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcEe 


born of a superficial consideration, say 
those imbued with the false construction, 
—‘‘*Christ said, ‘What, therefore, God hath 
joined together let not man put asunder.’ ”’ 
This expression is supposed to silence all 
questioning. A distinguished churchman 
recently wrote,—‘‘ There are no statements 
in Seripture couched, in clearer ‘form, and 
the words mean what they really do say.”’ 
The difficulty is they do not say what he 
thinks or says they say—‘‘a divine prohibi- 


tion of divorce.’’ They do not say that the ,; 


state may not do what Christ said the in- 
dividual man had no right to do. Why give 
the word ‘‘man’’ in the expression a 
broader meaning than the word ordinarily 
signifies? T’o do so requires interpretation 
—interpretation must be based on reason. 
No reason can be offered for so doing while 
abundant is apparent for limiting the word 
to its plain meaning. 

At the time of Christ, the individual man 
was assuming the right to put away his 
wife for any cause that suited his fancy, 
and he was claiming that in so doing he 


[5] 


Pat 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 


was authorized by the law of Moses. At 
the time Christ spoke, the law in respect 
to divorce was as grossly misconstrued, 
especially by the Pharisees, as some of 
Christ’s expressions have been since his 
time. 

The law of Moses did not authorize a 
. husband by his voluntary act ‘‘to put away 
his wife for every cause,’’ as was the then 
generally accepted construction of the 
Mosaic code. Such construction, however, 
was very popular with the male sex. His 
own disciples even were so imbued with the 
false teaching that when Christ declared 
the true meaning of the law, they said: ‘‘If 
it be so with a man and his wife, then it is 
not good to marry’’ (Matt. XIX, 10). 
Think of it—his own disciples holding to 
the view that a wife’s position was of so 
little moment in the general social order 
that if the husband could not divorce her 
by his independent and uncontrolled act, 
at his own sweet will and for any cause that 
suited his fancy, then a man had better 
never marry. ,That Christ should anathe- 


[6] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 


matize such a wicked perversion, not only , 
of the law of Moses but of sound morals, 
was only natural and Christ-like. 

The law of Moses, as will hereafter be 
shown, authorized a husband to put away * 
his wife by his own independent act for one 
cause only. It did not say, however, that 
for other causes he might not appeal to the 
state. Under the theory of the Mosaic law 
the judges spoke in the name of God. 
Governments to this day are based on the 
theory that they are so ordained. Both 
sacred and profane history supports this 
view. No more forceful expression relative 
to the province of the state, as distin- 
‘guished from the individual, can be found 
than in the instruction given by Moses to 
the Judges: ‘‘Ye shall not respect persons 
in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as 
well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of 
the face of man, for the judgment is God’s’’ 
(Deut. I, 17; see also 2 Chr. XIX, 6). ‘‘By 
me king's reign and princes decree justice,’’ 
says Proverbs VIII, 15. ‘‘For there is no 


[7] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


power but of God; the powers that be are 
ordained of God’’ (Rom. XIII, 1). 

There is precedent in the Scriptures for 
divorce proceedings under the authority of 
the state. In the Book of Ezra we find it 
recorded: (Chap. X) ‘‘Now, therefore, let 
us make a covenant with our God to put 
away all the wives, and such as are born of 
them . . . and let it be done according to 
the law. And Ezra the priest, with certain 
chiefs of the fathers, . . . sat down in the 
first day of the tenth month to examine the 
matter. And they made an end with all the 
men that had taken strange wives by the 
first day of the first month.’’ Here was the 
greatest divorce trial of history. Months 
were consumed in the hearings, and a 
whole community was involved. The wishes 
of the individuals affected were secondary 
to the purpose of the state that the mar- 
riages be dissolved and they were dissolved _ 
‘faccording to law.’’ 

Because the beautiful Queen Vashti re- 
fused to obey the command of King 
Ahasuerus to appear before him and be- 


[8] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


cause of the fear that her example of inde- 
pendence, unless rebuked, would have a bad 
effect on wives generally, ‘‘so that they 
shall despise their husbands in their eyes,’’ 
upon the advice of the seven princes of 
Persia and Media she was divorced ‘‘ac- 
cording to law.’’ Then went forth a public 
proclamation that ‘‘all wives shall give to 
their husbands honor both to great and 
small’? (Esther I). 

In attempting to support the ‘‘divine 
prohibition’’ construction, the words 
‘what therefore’’ in the Master’s expres- 
sion, have been taken to mean—whosoever 
may be joined in what the state recognizes 
as a legal marriage. The expression,— 
‘What therefore God hath joined together 
let not man put asunder’’—must not only 
be considered in connection with the entire 
context of Christ’s remarks upon the sub- 
ject, but also in view of the circumstances” 
which occasioned it. It is a portion of a 
reply made by Christ to a question pro- 
pounded to him by the Pharisees. It is im- 
portant also to note, as an aid to correct 


[9] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvorRcE 


interpretation, the ulterior purpose of the 
inquiry which was well understood by 
Christ, and which actounts largely, if not 
entirely, for the character.of reply. 

In the century immediately preceding the 
advent of Christ, the correct construction 
of the law of Moses in respect to divorce 
had been in controversy. Rabbi Hillel, High 
Priest and President of the Sanhedrim, the 
supreme judicial tribunal of the Jews, had 
given to certain words in the Mosaic code, 
expressing the ground for divorce, an ultra 
liberal construction and interpreted the 
law to permit a husband to divorce his wife 
for very trivial causes—‘‘every cause,’ as . 
the Pharisees expressed it in propounding 
the question to Christ hereinafter referred 
to. While the Hillel construction was gen- 
erally accepted as the correct one, doubt- 
less both because of its liberality and the 
great power of its proponent, it was contro- . 
verted by another Rabbi named Shammai, 
also a member of the Sanhedrim. Hillel 
was of the Pharisee sect; Shammai was a 
Scribe. While the influence and following 


[10] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


of Shammai was slight in comparison with 
that of Hillel, he was the better lawyer of 
the two, and his construction of the Mosaic 
code as limiting the right of a husband, by 
his individual act and without appeal to a 
court, to put away his wife only for an act 
of marital impropriety akin to adultery, 
was unquestionably correct. The law of 
Moses, being a written code, there is no 
difficulty in now determining its construc- 
tion. The Hillel construction was not 
merely ultra liberal, it was wholly unwar- 
ranted. Its effect was to cause many hus- 
bands to assume a power the law did not 
give them and in its application permitted 
the grossest of injustice and cruelty. 

At the time of Christ, the Hillel construc- 
tion was accepted as the law of Moses in 
respect to divorce. Its extreme liberality 
made it popular with the menfolk. Its 
abuses and the cruelties it inflicted did not 
disturb the public mind of that time until 
Christ proclaimed the law as it was written 
by Moses. 


[11] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 


Having in mind the accepted erroneous 
construction of the Mosaic law, one other 
circumstance is important to consider in 
determining the all important question— 
did Christ intend to utter a new law on 
Divorce or simply correctly interpret the 
existing law and point out the effect of its 
violation? 

One of the most wicked conspiracies of 
all history is that which the Pharisees 
entered into to accomplish the death of 
Christ. One of the methods adopted to gain 
their purpose was to accuse Christ of re- 
pudiating both the Jewish and Roman laws 
and setting up instead laws of his own. In 
effect, to charge him with treason. They 
‘‘took counsel of the Herodians against 
him, how they might destroy him’’ (Mark 
Ill, 6). They sought to ‘‘provoke him to 
speak of many things; lying wait for him 
and seeking to catch something out of his 
mouth, that they might accuse him’’ (Luke 
XI, 53, 54; John VIII, 6), or ‘‘that so they 
might deliver him into the power and 
authority of the governor”’’ (Luke XX, 20), 


[12] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 


their purpose being ‘‘to destroy him”’ 
(Matt. XII, 14; Mark XI, 18; Luke XIX, 
47). 

It was with this purpose in view that 
they ‘‘brought unto him a woman’’ and said 
—‘“This woman was taken in adultery— 
Moses in the law commanded us that such 
should be stoned; but what sayest thou?”’ 


Here was a test of tests. Christ, however, - 


did not answer—‘‘No, she shall not be 
stoned, I bring a new law’’—but instead 
replied: ‘‘He that is without sin among 
you, let him first cast a stone at her’’ (John 
VIII, 3). This statement did not deny the 
law. The hypocritical Pharisees, not ex- 
pecting a reply of this kind and disap- 
pointed in their real purpose, suddenly lost 
all interest in inflicting the punishment 
upon the unfortunate woman and slunk 
away. 

With the same purpose in mind, the 
Pharisees propounded the question—‘‘ Is it 
lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?’’ 
Note their cunning in asking this question. 
If the answer were ‘‘yes’’ he could be ac- 


[13] 


oF 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 


cused of disloyalty to Moses and the Jew- 
ish people. If the answer were ‘‘no,’’ they 
could make a similar charge before their 
Roman conquerors. In their zeal, however, 
they overlooked the fact that the money of 
the realm was Roman. ‘‘But Jesus per- 
ceived their wickedness and said: ‘Why 
tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the 
tribute money.’ ’’ They admitted it bore the 
image of Caesar. ‘‘Render, therefore, unto 
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and 
unto God the things that are God’s’’ (Matt. 
XXII, 21) was an answer which again de- 
feated them in their purpose. Notwith- 
standing this answer, however, they there- 
after falsely accused Christ of ‘‘forbidding 
to give tribute to Caesar’? (Luke XXIII, 
2). 

Doubtless it was because Christ knew of 
the purpose of the Pharisees that he said 
to his disciples: ‘‘Think not that I have 
come to destroy the law or the prophets—I 
, have not come to destroy but to fulfill’”’ 
* (Matt. V,17). This statement is wholly in- 
consistent with any idea that Christ was 


[14] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


seeking to substitute laws of his own in 
place of the existing code. To the Pharisees 
Christ is recorded as saying: ‘‘Did not — 
Moses give you the law, and yet none of you ~ 
keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill 
me?’’ (John VII, 19). Christ at no time _ 
sought to substitute laws of his own in > 
place of those of the Mosaic code. Had he 
pursued that course we would expect to 
find him changing the laws respecting slav- 
ery, polygamy, concubinage and numerous 
others. He knew that before statutes could , 
be changed, a change would first have to 
occur in the hearts and minds of men. He 
knew that when the golden rule and his 
commandment ‘‘that ye love one another’’ » 
should be accepted, statutes would change 
to conform. 

‘Ts it lawful for a man to put away his 
wife for every cause?’’ (Matt. XIX, 3) was 
the blunt question put by the Pharisees to 
Christ. The Scriptures say they asked the 
question ‘‘tempting him’’ (Mark V, 2). 
Why did they wish to tempt him? Mani- 
festly to have him make the same statement 


[15] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 


that they doubtless had heard he had made 
to his disciples that they might ‘‘accuse 
him’’ of repudiating the Mosaic law, as 
they believed it to be. What chance, thought © 
the Pharisees, would Christ have to answer 
the charge of disloyalty when the great 
Hillel was against him and popular male 
sentiment was overwhelming for the liberal 
construction? 

Christ first replied to the Pharisees pre- 
cisely in the same general way that he did 
in other cases where their purpose in ques- 
tioning him was the same. The Pharisees 
“ eglaimed to be strict observers of the law 
and believers in the writings and traditions 
of the Old Testament. Instead of immedi- 
ately giving a direct answer to these Phar- 
isees, whom he had likened unto ‘‘ whitened 
sepulchres,’’ he propounded the counter 
question which he knew would put them to 
confusion—‘‘Have ye not read that He 
which made them at the beginning made 
them male and female?’’ Christ immedi- 
ately followed this question by quoting the 
words attributed to Adam in the second 


[16] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


chapter of Genesis, after Eve had been 
made from his rib—‘‘For this cause shall 
a man leave father and mother, and shall 
cleave to his wife and they twain shall be 
one flesh.’’ Then followed the statement: 
‘“Wherefore, they are no more twain but 
one flesh. What therefore, God hath joined 
together let not man put asunder’’ (Matt. 
XIX, 5, 6)° 

The tables were now turned on the Phar- 
isees. Christ was the interrogator and no 
matter how they answered the question 
they were defeated. They could not deny 
the Scriptures without stultifying their 
professions of faith. They did the only 
thing they could do—tried to reverse the 
situation again by propounding the further 
question to Christ—‘‘ Why did Moses then 
command to give a writing of divorcement, 
and to put her away?’’ (Id. 7). The answer, 
according to St. Matthew, was: ‘‘ Moses, 
because of the hardness of your hearts, suf- 
fered you to put away your wives; but from 
the beginning it was not so’’ (Id. 8). Ac- 
cording to St. Mark, the answer was: ‘‘ For 


[17] 


a) 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorRoEk 


the hardness of your hearts he wrote you 
this precept’? (Mark X, 5). No reference 
appears at all in St. Luke of an answer or 
statement of this kind having been made 
by Christ. It is very probable that on ac- 
count of the lapse of years which occurred 
before St. Matthew or St. Mark undertook 
to record the sayings of Christ, they were 
subject to the same defects of memory 
which is common to all humans. 3 

It will be observed that St. Matthew does 
not quote Christ as saying that Moses 
wrote such a law because of the hardness 
of their hearts, but rather that he suffered 
them to disregard it. There is convincing 
evidence that neither St. Matthew nor St. 
Mark remembered the precise language of 
Christ in this particular case or else that 
they confused it with some other expres- 
sion. There were no Pharisees in the time 
of Moses and hence neither could a law 
have been written for their benefit nor could 
they have been suffered to violate a written 
statute. But more impressive than this is 
the character of Moses himself. He was 


[18] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


not the man to write a law for the con- 
venience of any particular class nor to 
temporize enforcement. The place of Moses 
among the few really great of the earth is . 
not dimmed by special favors to the hard 
hearted. The man who had the courage to 
slay the Egyptian oppressor of one of his 
people would not temporize for the accom- 
modation of the unworthy. It is, of course, 
inconceivable that Christ so spoke as to put 
Moses in such a wrong light. Upon the 
contrary, Christ is recorded as fearlessly 
closing his remarks to the Pharisees with 
the same statement of what the law was 
that he had previously made to his dise}- 
ples (Matt. XIX, 9). The fact that St. 
Luke, who wrote later than either St. 
Matthew or St. Mark and had the benefit 
of their gospels, omitted any reference to 
this latter statement as having been made 
by Christ, indicates that he may have no- 
ticed the error. 

The asserted ‘‘divine prohibition’’ con- 
struction finds its basis in what the words 
‘‘What, therefore’’ relate to. They refer to 


[19] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 


- the allegorical legend of the creation as it 


appears in the second chapter of Genesis— 
‘¢ And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall 
upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one 
_ of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead 

thereof. And the rib which the Lord God 
had taken from man made he a woman and 
brought her unto the man. And Adam said, 
this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of 
my flesh... . Therefore shall a man leave 
his father and his mother, and shall cleave 
unto his wife and they shall be one flesh’’ 
(Gen. II, 21-24). 

It is no longer dangerous heresy to say 
that the Biblical story of the creation is not 
literally true. Science has unfolded the 
true story which reveals the glory, power 
and omnipotence of God to a degree in- 
comparably greater than that attempted to 
be portrayed by the poetical genius who 
conceived the legend of the Garden of 


Hiden. When it is considered that great. 


solar systems exist hundreds of light years 
distant from this little planet of ours, all 
moving in perfect harmony pursuant to 


[20] 


BRP 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


natural law, how impotent is man even now 
to pen an adequate description of the crea- 
tion. Christ knew that the accounts of the 
creation were merely allegorical. He was 
particular not to say they were to be taken 
as literal truth, but instead only asked the 
Pharisees if they had not read them—they 
professing at least to believe them. It can- 
not be conceived that Christ intended to ” 
base a fundamental law upon so unstable 
a foundation. The unknown author of the 
legend of the Garden of Eden and the crea- 
tion of Adam and Eve was particular to 
incorporate in his account conclusive evi- 
dence of its legendary character. The na- 
tions of Assyria and Ethiopia were in 
existence when the legend was written and 
are mentioned by name. The Kuphrates 
River was known and the land of Havilah 
is described ‘‘where there is gold, bedel- 
lium and the onyx stone.”’ Unnumbered 
centuries had elapsed from ‘‘the begin- 


ning’’ before mankind had developed in the = _ » 
slow progress towards civilization to the 


stage when language had been perfected; 
[21] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


appreciation acquired of the value of gold 
for money or ornament; the onyx stone to 
adorn man’s palaces and peoples to have 
become organized into nations. The tran- 
scriber of the legend, that of necessity had 
its origin in imagination and had come 
down through the centuries, did not assume 


¥ to say that God said that marriage made 


the parties thereto ‘‘one flesh.’? At most 
the expression is but imaginary words put 
in the mouth of a mythical man by an un- 
known author. 

If we discard reason, accept fiction for 
truth, and fetter our minds with literal 
interpretation, what results? Because Hive 
was made from Adam’s rib she became 
bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. 
‘‘Therefore, shall a man—cleave unto his 
wife and they shall be one flesh.’’ To put 
it more clearly: Because the legendary first 
woman was made from the rib of the legen- 
dary first man, all men and women who 
thereafter marry become of one flesh. If, 


/ therefore, the rib story fails the ‘‘one 


flesh’’ corollary, which is the basis of the 
[22] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRoE 


asserted ‘‘divine prohibition”’ fails with it. 

If sanctity at all is to be given to the 
legendary accounts of the creation, then 
the account in the first chapter of Genesis 
wherein man and woman were created at 
the same time—‘‘male and female created 
he them’’—is entitled to equal considera- 
tion, and it has the added charm of what 
we conceive of divinity—fairness and jus- 
tice. ‘‘Clearly,’’ said the Rev. John White _ 
Chadwick, ‘‘the legend of Hive, if not the ~ 
Genesis narration, is dominated by a spirit 
of hostility towards womankind.’’ This 
_ *hostility’’ later appears in 1 Timothy II, 
11-15, wherein it is written: ‘‘Let the 
women learn in silence with all subjection 
... for Adam was first formed, then Eve, 
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman 
being deceived was in the transgression. ’’ 
There is not a recorded expression of 


Christ to the effect that he held woman to ~ 


be an inferior being. 

While the ‘‘one flesh’’ conception of 
marriage rests only in an_ allegorical 
legend, it may be accepted as true and that 


[23] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 


marriage constitutes a joining together by 
God and that man may not put the same 
asunder, yet that does not even imply that 
¥ the state may not dissolve the union with- 
out violating divine command. The injunc- 
tion applying to man specifically operates 
to exclude the power of the state from the 
inhibition. That is in accordance with a 
fundamental rule of construction. 

The construers of Christ’s expressions 
upon divorce appear never to have taken 
into account the law of Moses upon the 
subject or else have accepted the Hillel 
interpretation as expressing the Mosaic 
law. For illustration, Dr. Theodore Dwight 
Woolsey, in his ‘‘Hissay on Divorcee,’’ here- 
tofore referred to, says that Christ ‘‘criti- 
cises a provision of the Mosaic law, and 
taxes it with imperfection.’’ Continuing, 
the learned Doctor further says: ‘‘His in- 
terest is moral, his views are general and 
human, not Jewish and Mosaieal. 

What then does he (Christ) lay down? 
His rules may be all comprised in the fol- 
lowing propositions: First: that the man 


[24] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


who in conformity with the permission or 
sufferance of the law puts away his wife 
by a bill of divorcement—‘saving for the 
cause of fornication’—and marries another 
commits adultery. Second: that the man 
who thus puts away his wife causes her to 
commit adultery. Third: that the man who 
marries her who has thus been put away 
commits adultery. Fourth: that the woman 
who puts away her husband and is married 
to another commits adultery.”’ 

Here we have one of the greatest schol- 


ars of his time giving a perfectly correct _ 


interpretation of the effect of the law of 
Moses without knowing that he was so 
doing; calling it a new law laid down by 
Christ and saying that Christ criticised the 
Mosaic law and taxed it with imperfection. 
The only mistake he made in a correct con- 
struction of the law of Moses was in his 
expression ‘‘permission or sufferance of 
the law.’’ There was no permission or suf- 


ferance of the law except in the case of the ~ 


one specific cause therein named. 
[25] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 


The following is the Mosaic law on the 
subject of divorce as the translation from 
the original Hebrew appears in modern 
Bibles: 


‘‘When a man hath taken a wife and 
married her and it come to pass that she 
find no favor in his eyes, because he hath 
found some uncleanness in her, then let him 
write her,a bill of divorcement, and give it 
in her hand, and send her out of his house. 
And when she is departed out of his house 
she may go and be another man’s wife”’ 
(Deut. XXIV, 1). 


The expressions of Christ, as they ap- 
pear in St. Matthew’s Gospel, read: 


‘Tt hath been said, ‘Whosoever shall put 
away his wife let him give her a writing of 
divorcement.’ But I say unto you, that 
whosoever shall put away his wife save for 
the cause of fornication, causeth her to 
commit adultery and whosoever shall 
marry her that is divorced committeth 
adultery. . . . Whosoever shall put away 
his wife except for the cause of fornication 


[26] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrIvoRcE 


and shall marry another, committeth 
adultery’’ (Matt. V, 31, 32; XIX, 9). 


If, as will hereafter be shown, the words 
used by Moses and translated ‘‘unclean- 
ness’’ and the word or expression used by 


Christ and translated ‘‘fornication’’ mean 


the same thing, namely, some act or con- 
duct akin to or indicating adultery,—then 
it follows as a necessary conclusion that 
Christ instead of promulgating a new 
moral law simply correctly construed the 
Mosaic code and precisely stated the effect 
of its violation. The conclusion follows for 
the reason that if a modern court were con- 
struing a similar law, it would declare that 
if a husband gave his wife a bill of divorce- 
ment for any other cause than that pre- 
scribed in the statute, and such husband 
should thereafter marry another wife, and 
such wife should thereafter marry another 
husband, all the parties to such subsequent 
marriages would commit adultery for the 
reason the original divorce would be void. 

Precisely the same result would now 


[27] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


follow if a court of one of our states, New 
York for example, which permits an abso- 
lute divorce only for adultery, should nev- 
ertheless assume to grant a divorce to 
either of the spouses for a ground like 
cruelty or desertion, and the parties to 
such proceedings would thereafter marry 
other persons. The decree of divorce being 
void because the court was without juris- | 
diction to enter it, the parties would re- 
main married, notwithstanding the decree. 
The subsequent marriages would likewise 
be void and all the parties thereto would 
commit adultery because there had been in 
fact no valid divorce. 

It becomes important then to determine 
just what the Mosaic code provided. The 
~ word ‘‘uncleanness’’ used in the transla- 
tion, is erroneous. If the word meaning 
uncleanness, as that word appears fre- 
quently throughout the Mosaic law, had 
been used, then a husband could divorce his 
wife for a great number of trivial but 
innocent causes, even including that of 
motherhood itself, for the wife was ‘‘un- 


[28] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 


clean’’ for a certain period following child- 
birth (Lev. XII). Such a law would be so 
unjust that it is inconceivable that Moses‘ 
would have ever become a party to it. 

What is given as a more literal transla- 
tion of the Hebrew words ‘‘erwath dabar”’ 
used by Moses in the law in question is 
‘‘nakedness’’ or ‘‘matter of nakedness.’’ 
The words are so translated in numerous 
passages in the Old Testament where it is 
clear that the meaning is conduct indicat- 
ing incest or adultery (Lev. XVIII, 6-19; 
XX, 12, 17-21; Hizek. XVI, 36). 

For example, and an interesting illustra- 
tion, it is written: 

‘<Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
of thy brother’s wife—it is thy brother’s 
nakedness’’ (Lev. XVIII, 16). 

It was because John the Baptist, refer- 
ring to this provision of the Mosaic law, 
said to Herod: ‘‘It is not lawful for thee 
to have her’’—meaning Herodias, ‘‘his 
brother Philip’s wife,’’ that his head was 
made the price of his fearless indiscretion 
(Matt. XIV, 3, 4, 11). The late Rev. S. R. 


[29] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DiIvorcE 


~ Driver in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexi- 
con says of these words: ‘‘chiefly euphe- 
mistic for cohabitation; implying shameful 
exposure.’’ 

When we come to the word appearing in. 
St. Matthew’s gospel as the exception to 
the rule against allowing a husband to put 
away his wife, usually translated ‘‘fornica- 
tion,’’ we find almost as much controversy 
/ over its true meaning as in the case of the 

words used by Moses. The difference of 
opinion appears to be whether the word 
should be deemed the equivalent of adul- 
tery or deemed to include immoral conduct 
of both a greater and less degree than usu- 
ally comprehended in the word adultery. 

In arriving at a proper construction of 
the language of Christ it should be borne 
in mind that Christ spoke in Aramaic and 
not in Greek. St. Matthew writing in the 
latter language had to find a word that 
would as nearly as possible express the 
meaning of the Aramaic word or words 
used by Christ. This is a task not always 
easy because of the varying shades of 


[30] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvorcE 


meaning which words take on. The choice 
of the word ‘‘fornication’’ in the transla- 
tion of Christ’s remarks is as unfortunate / 
as the use of the word ‘‘uncleanness’’ in the 
translation of the law of Moses. Fornica- 
tion is an offense of an unmarried woman 
only. It is manifest that a word meaning 
fornication in its strict sense was not used 
by Christ. 

Harmonizing the expressions used by 
Moses and by Christ, concerning the 
ground for divorce, one is impressed by the 


fact that neither used the word meaning , 


adultery as expressing the ground for 
divorce. Had the Mosaic code used a word 
meaning adultery and Christ had done like- 
wise, there could be no room for argument 
that Christ in his address to his disciples 
did nothing more than correctly construe 
the Mosaic law. The fact remains, how- . 
ever, that the words employed by both © 
Moses and Christ expressed the same thing 
—conduct akin to or indicating adultery. 

There is an apparent and substantial 
reason why the word ‘‘adultery’’ was not 


[31] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRCE 


used in the Mosaic law. Adultery was pun- 
ishable by death. The death penalty, how- 
ever, could only be inflicted upon the testi- 
mony of two and preferably three wit- 
nesses (Deut. XVII, 6; XIX, 15; John 
WITT. 17.2: Cor. XI, 1). tis only?res= 
sonable to assume that in the matter of 
divorcee the law would not require so high 
a degree of proof as in the case where the 
death penalty was inflicted. The law, there- 
fore, gave to the husband the power to 
‘out away’’ a wife for conduct indicating 
to his satisfaction that adultery, possibly 
or probably, had been committed. The 
judgment of the husband was not deemed 
conclusive, for the wife so put away was 
permitted ‘‘to go and be another man’s 
wife.’? Once having been put away, her 
former husband could never remarry her. 
The basis of this latter provision doubtless 
was intended to deter action upon mere 
suspicious circumstances. 

Christ used the expression: ‘‘It hath 
been said, whosoever shall put away his 
wife, let him give her a writing of divoree- 


[32] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


ment,’’ etc. It is important to bear in mind 


that the Mosaic law made no such broad ° 


statement. It is also worthy of note that 
Christ did not say that such was the state- 
ment ‘‘of them of old time’’ as he did when 
he referred to the commandments—‘‘ Thou 
shalt not kill’? and ‘‘ Thou shalt not commit 
adultery’’ (Matt. V, 21, 27). It was not 
‘them of old time’’ who said a man could 


put away his wife ‘‘for every cause,’’ but! 


it was the followers of the Pharisee Hillel 
who were so saying in the time of Christ 
and teaching that such was the law of 
Moses. 

From a consideration of all the facts and 
circumstances essential to be considered in 
connection with the expressions of Christ 
upon the subject of divorce, the conclusion 


follows that Christ had no intention of _ 


\ 


making any expression in conflict with the ° 


existing Mosaic Code. Upon the contrary, 
his purpose was to declare the law as it 
existed and point out the effect of its viola- 
tion. Certain of his expressions to the 
Pharisees clearly had in view the double 


[33] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrIvorcB 


purpose of defeating them in their en- 
deavor to find a basis of accusation against 
him, and at the same time making an ap- 
peal to their intelligence that the construc- 
tion of the law they contended for was 
inconsistent with their own professions of 
belief in respect to other portions of the 
Scriptures. 

That an erroneous construction of 
Christ’s remarks upon divorce have been 
generally accepted for so many centuries 
is largely due to certain expressions ap- 
pearing in the Epistles of St. Paul. In 
First Corinthians VI, appears this expres- 
sion: ‘‘ Know ye not that he which is joined 
to a harlot is one body? For two, saith he, 
shall be one flesh.’’ There is no recorded 
expression of the Master that can be tor- 
tured into any possible construction that 
illicit intercourse of the sexes constituted 
the guilty parties ‘‘one flesh.’’ St. Paul 
failed to note that Christ only asked the 
Pharisees if they had not read the lan- 
guage attributed to Adam that marriage 
constituted the parties thereto ‘‘one flesh’’ 


[34] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DtIvorcEe 


and did not himself confirm that statement 
as a physical fact. Carried to its logical 
conclusion this statement of St. Paul de- 
stroys the beautiful symbolism of the ‘‘one 
flesh’’ conception of true marriage. The 
Mosaic code, as it existed and as inter- 
preted by Christ, recognized that adultery 
authorized the dissolution of the marital 


relation. This statement of St. Paul re-> 


solves the ‘‘one flesh’’ idea to a basis of ° 


i 


carnal knowledge that could multiply itself / 


indefinitely. The great debt which the 
world owes to St. Paul for his incompar- 
able work in the spread of Christianity will 


be the better paid if it is frankly admitted 7 
that in his great zeal for a supreme cause — 


he was still human and subject to error. * 
In his Epistle to the Romans VII, 1-3, is 
found this expression: ‘‘Know ye _ not 
brethren (for I speak to them that know 
the law) how that the law hath dominion 
over a man as long as he liveth? For the 
woman which hath a husband is bound by 
the law to her husband so long as he liveth; 


but if the husband be dead, she is loosed | 


[35] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


from the law of her husband. So then, if 
while her husband liveth she be married to 
another man, she shall be called an adul- 
teress; but if her husband be dead, she is 
free from that law, so that she is no adul- 
teress, though she be married to another 
man.’’ 

St. Paul is here assuming to speak of the 
law. Later in the same Epistle he says: 
‘Moses described the righteousness which 
is of the law.’’ Whether he was assuming 
to give the law of Moses or interpreting the 
expressions of Christ in respect to divoree, 
his statement, without material modifica- 
tion, is clearly erroneous. Both the law of 
Moses and the statement of Christ ex- 
pressed one cause for which a husband 
could by his own act put away his wife and © 
if she married again she would not become 
an adulteress, though the very cause for 
putting away comprehended the possible 
or even probable commission of the offense 
_ of adultery. St. Paul also failed to take 
- into consideration the power of the state 


[36] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 


speaking through its judges, which Moses 
declared was the judgment of God. 

The expressions of St. Paul in reference 
to divorce not only reflect a misunderstand-_ 
ing of Christ’s remarks upon the subject,” 
but it would seem that they may also re- 
flect somewhat the peculiar personal views 
of the great evangelist in respect to mar- 
riage and the place of women in society. 
St. Paul was a Pharisee and his conversion 
to Christianity did not change entirely his 
prejudices in a number of particulars. 
Concerning marriage he wrote: ‘‘I would 
that all men were even as I myself... . 
I say, therefore, to the unmarried and 
widows, it is good for them if they abide 
evenas lI... . He that giveth her in mar- 
riage doeth well; but he that giveth her 
not in marriage doeth better’? (1 Cor. 
VII). Concerning his idea of the subor- 
dination of woman to man, among other 
similar expressions, he wrote: ‘‘Let your 
women keep silence in the churches, for it 
is not permitted unto them to speak; but 
they are commanded to be under obedience 


[37] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 


as also saith the law. And if they will 
learn anything, let them ask their husbands 
at home, for it is a shame for women to 
speak in the church.’’ It is needless to say 
that these expressions are not in keeping 
with modern Christian civilization. 

The limitation of divorce to the one 
ground of adultery, upon the mistaken as- 
sumption that such was the teaching of 
Christ, has been the cause of more misery 
in the world than is possible for the human 
mind to conceive. There is no cruelty more 
lingering, nor slavery more galling, than 
the consciousness that one is linked for life 
in the closest of all human relationships to 
another whom the mind can only contem- 
plate with deepest abhorrence. 

Such misinterpretation has placed innu- 
merable thousands, who have had legally , 
dissolved an unfortunate union for causes 
other than the one erroneously said to be 
alone sanctioned by Christ, and who there- 
after have contracted a happy union, in 
the position of living in adultery according 
to asserted divine law. Worse than all, pos- 


[38] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DtvorcE 


sibly, it amounts to saying that marriages 
which violate the laws of God written in 
the eternal Book of Nature; which shock 
the human conception of what the marital 
relation should be, the issue of which, in ~ 
some instances, can only be defective be- 
ings, burdens to themselves and to society, 
may not be dissolved without violating 
divine command. Under a proper interpre- 
tation of Christ’s words, it ought rather to 
be regarded as blasphemy to say that God ° 
joined together the parties to such unions. 
Divorce may be abused as the rite or 
right of marriage ofttimes has been and 
doubtless will continue to be abused. To 
say that many legal marriages are but 
travesties is but to say what every one 
knows to be true. To say that the dissolu- 
tion of such misalliances is harmful to 
society is like saying that the surgeon’s 
knife is essentially a baneful instrument. 
 $§t. Paul gave the admonition: ‘‘Hus- 
bands love your wives, and be not bitter 
against them.’’ But what of the wives 
whose husbands failed to regard that ad- 


[39] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 


monition? In Proverbs it is written: ‘‘A 
foolish son is the calamity of his father 
and the contentions of a wife are a con- 
tinual dropping. It is better to dwell in the 
wilderness than with a contentious and 
angry woman.’’ The father’s calamity oft- 
times becomes an even greater cal Ay to 
a good wife. 

Christ did not declare a doctrine so un- 
reasonable that a husband’s only alterna- 
tive was the wilderness for relief from a 
‘‘continual dropping’’ that in time wears 
out the spirit; nor that a wife must endure 
the bitterness of a cruel husband with no 
other hope of relief but the grave. St. Paul 
also wrote: ‘‘He that loveth his wife loveth 
himself, for no man ever yet hated his own 
flesh’? (Eph. V, 28, 29). But men do some- 
times grow to hate their wives, and, if that 
be so, then it must be that they cease to be 
of their own flesh. 

Christ well knew the debasing position 
that was the common lot of the women of 
his time, due in part to the misinterpreta- 
tion of the law respecting the power of the 


[40] 


CHRISTIANITY AND DiIvorcE 


husband to put away his wife ‘‘for every 
cause.’’ His statement of what the law was 
and his effort to reach the mind of the 
Pharisees who were not only its chief of- 
fenders but were the main stumbling block 
in the way of the spread of his new cove- 
nant, ought not forever to be construed to 
mean that one spouse must suffer barbar- 
ous cruelties at the hands of the other with- 
out hope of relief except in defiance of him 
who was the embodiment of love, truth and 
justice. 

Christ made no utterance susceptible of 
a construction to the effect that civilized 
society, represented in the state and ac- 
knowledging the supremacy of God, might ’ 
not dissolve the union of a man and a 
woman when such union by the action of 
one or both of the spouses becomes intoler- 
able, and its existence a travesty upon the 
marital relation. To construe such an in- 
tent into the words used by the Master not 
only does violence to the rules of construc- 
tion which the wisdom of centuries have 
found most certain to determine the true 


[41] 


CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 


intent of the law maker, but contravenes 
the very spirit of Christ’s teachings gener- 
ally. The basis of true marriage is love, 
mutual respect, helpfulness and forbear- 
ance. When a union becomes one of intol- 
erable cruelties, neglect, debasing associa- 
tion or a condition of master and slave, the 
law may declare dissolved what has al- 
ready ceased to exist, if it ever had exis- 
tence, in fact, without violating the teach- 
ings of Christ. 


[42] 











DATE DUE 


; . 5 f 
el 
4 
x j ” 
= 





PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


GAYLORD 


























ra wy ssp ax . 
CMe he ee Me Sessa PY EHL ey * 
ae Cy a Oe - ‘ + : 1 
* P i we 
» , ety ary 
wie ae: alld 
bey <p 





<a 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 


eee NT 


| 1 1012 01003 0700 









































7 niga gi! 
dig. WOH ‘ PRN * 
has ike =] 
- ‘ Pure eis 
\ x 
Yy a ik " n 
ev are tar ; 1 ak x : Ry 
i i : hes ad 
*, ‘ ‘ ¥ iy 
ae why ; “ Re 
‘ “] 
Pte i" - 
; j Woy 
* ‘2 ' 
2 b i : . bate >) t 
han 
\e . ‘ ] r \ PAgey Oe as 
3 i i : Vin hey Utes Arey reine 
¢ < 
& 
. UA : 1 > 
HR : st 
¢ Shed ar 
eh ie 
‘ yt ‘ 
4, 7 
i ; . Fi ay is “yt 
f . ‘ ee ey 
; 
ake ‘ Mea rarer Poe bow 
% t 
ae tan y Sy 








j i i + 23 
- 
t a3 : ’ 
- dry Fee 
. wt : 
q pre 
: ~y tg 
; y , : 

ri we ¢ es 

fe ; 





